I think this take misunderstands the political reality: in the U.S. we have what could charitably be called a flawed democracy. Just because laws are passed or policies enacted doesn’t mean there is majority support.
The house of representatives is elected under rules which are determined state by state. Many states have gerrymandered districts, which is just legal cheating.
Each state receives two senators, regardless of population. Places like North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, each get two senators even though they have smaller populations that individual cities in other states.
The president is selected by the electoral college, not the popular vote.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life - random chance of when they die determines how many justices one party or the other gets to appoint (before we get to Republicans cheating Democrats out of an appointment).
All of which sounds and is grim, but I take a little encouragement from the fact that the majority of Americans do support many reasonable policies and improvements.
Also, more than a third of people sit home on national election day. Which is the highest rate of attendance of any election. State and local elections get an even smaller portion of the electorate.
It’s not that they choose this, it’s that they choose not to oppose it.
Even that I think can partially be explained by people feeling in their gut that their vote won’t change anything about their situation. Might be wrong, but you look at something like Obama winning which did have some positive effects, but not the hope and change people were expecting.
I think this take misunderstands the political reality: in the U.S. we have what could charitably be called a flawed democracy. Just because laws are passed or policies enacted doesn’t mean there is majority support.
The house of representatives is elected under rules which are determined state by state. Many states have gerrymandered districts, which is just legal cheating.
Each state receives two senators, regardless of population. Places like North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, each get two senators even though they have smaller populations that individual cities in other states.
The president is selected by the electoral college, not the popular vote.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life - random chance of when they die determines how many justices one party or the other gets to appoint (before we get to Republicans cheating Democrats out of an appointment).
All of which sounds and is grim, but I take a little encouragement from the fact that the majority of Americans do support many reasonable policies and improvements.
Also, more than a third of people sit home on national election day. Which is the highest rate of attendance of any election. State and local elections get an even smaller portion of the electorate.
It’s not that they choose this, it’s that they choose not to oppose it.
Even that I think can partially be explained by people feeling in their gut that their vote won’t change anything about their situation. Might be wrong, but you look at something like Obama winning which did have some positive effects, but not the hope and change people were expecting.